- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@avalanchethecat saidSo given all of that, how can you say the fossil record supports the theory of evolution? You’re just repeating an unproven assertion.
Because there are a huge number of fossils, very many of them incomplete, lots of them show features which could be considered transitional. I haven't examined them all, I haven't counted all of the ones which I consider to be transitional and even if I did it would only be a tiny proportion of the total, and there's no agreed definition as to what a transitional fossil even is. It's a child's question.
And no one’s asking you to examine or count the alleged transitional fossils. Surely a source exists somewhere who has already done that. I think if you look for a concrete number of actual transitional fossils, you might find three or four, and even those are in dispute.
Far from the “truly enormous” number Darwin said would have to exist for his theory to be true.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@avalanchethecat saidMy point is that figures of speech are often employed that are not meant to convey an accurate description of something.
I'm sure a great number of them do, but everyone? No, of course not. What's your point?
The Holy Bible is not a scientific textbook. But when it touches upon matters of science, it’s accurate - and thousands of years ahead of man.
@pb1022 saidGood grief it's like talking to a brick wall. Do you remember when I pointed out at least a couple of times that Darwin's gradualist view is now considered incomplete? Well it still is. Even accepting the modern punctuated-equilibrium view, there are still very many 'transitional' fossils. Have a look into the evolution of whales some time. Or indeed, the evolution of our own species. Both sequences are replete with transitional forms.
So given all of that, how can you say the fossil record supports the theory of evolution? You’re just repeating an unproven assertion.
And no one’s asking you to examine or count the alleged transitional fossils. Surely a source exists somewhere who has already done that. I think if you look for a concrete number of actual transitional fossils, you might find three or four, ...[text shortened]... .
Far from the “truly enormous” number Darwin said would have to exist for his theory to be true.
@pb1022 saidRight, so on the one hand you're saying the bible is all scientific and accurate and way ahead of what other people knew at the time, but on the other hand you're saying that it's not because it's employing a figure of speech?
My point is that figures of speech are often employed that are not meant to convey an accurate description of something.
The Holy Bible is not a scientific textbook. But when it touches upon matters of science, it’s accurate - and thousands of years ahead of man.
I think you should stop getting your arguments from creationist websites. The bible doesn't demonstrate any advanced scientific knowledge at all. If you want to follow this religion, it's a faith thing. You make a leap. There's no proof, no evidence, no convincing argument. If there was, we'd all be Christians. If you need to convince yourself with these flimsy arguments then ok, but you're wasting your time trying to convince me, I've heard all this stuff before and I've looked at it in detail, there's no substance behind your assertions.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@avalanchethecat said“Very many transitional fossils?”
Good grief it's like talking to a brick wall. Do you remember when I pointed out at least a couple of times that Darwin's gradualist view is now considered incomplete? Well it still is. Even accepting the modern punctuated-equilibrium view, there are still very many 'transitional' fossils. Have a look into the evolution of whales some time. Or indeed, the evolution of our own species. Both sequences are replete with transitional forms.
Really?
I thought you just said no agreed-upon definition exists for a transitional fossil.
And if there really are “very many” transitional fossils, why can’t you quantify them? And not necessarily an exact number but a range.
More than 50? More than 100? More than 1,000?
Your statement there are “very many transitional fossils” is not only false, it’s meaningless.
But the theory of evolution survives in this kind of ambiguity and unproven (false) statements.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@avalanchethecat
<<Right, so on the one hand you're saying the bible is all scientific and accurate and way ahead of what other people knew at the time, but on the other hand you're saying that it's not because it's employing a figure of speech?>>
I didn’t say the Holy Bible was “all scientific.” I said when it touches on science, it’s accurate and thousands of years ahead of man.
Sure, the Bible includes a variety of different genres of writing: Poetry, wisdom literature, prophecies, biography, etc. The Bible is 66 books, not one book.
Obviously the writer of Isaiah did not mean the heavens are a literal curtain and literal tent.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@avalanchethecat
<< I think you should stop getting your arguments from creationist websites. The bible doesn't demonstrate any advanced scientific knowledge at all. If you want to follow this religion, it's a faith thing. You make a leap. There's no proof, no evidence, no convincing argument. If there was, we'd all be Christians. If you need to convince yourself with these flimsy arguments then ok, but you're wasting your time trying to convince me, I've heard all this stuff before and I've looked at it in detail, there's no substance behind your assertions.>>
I don’t get my arguments from creationist websites. I can think for myself. Can you?
Sure it does. Faith is certainly part of being a Christian, but solid evidence supports the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The same cannot be said for the theory of evolution.
Never said there was proof. I said there was evidence. Some people accept the evidence and some don’t.
And I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m stating my opinion.
You’ve looked into evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in detail? I find that very hard to believe.
Just as I find very hard to believe that you’ve looked into evidence for the theory of evolution in detail. If you had, you’d be able to provide evidence for macroevolution.
@pb1022 saidDon't take my word for it, go and study, it may expand your mind. And do stop asking this silly, childish question, it really doesn't make you sound clever.
“Very many transitional fossils?”
Really?
I thought you just said no agreed-upon definition exists for a transitional fossil.
And if there really are “very many” transitional fossils, why can’t you quantify them? And not necessarily an exact number but a range.
More than 50? More than 100? More than 1,000?
Your statement there are “very many transitional fossils ...[text shortened]... .
But the theory of evolution survives in this kind of ambiguity and unproven (false) statements.
@pb1022 saidThere are no scientific revelations in the bible. If you had a broader education you'd know this.
@avalanchethecat
<<Right, so on the one hand you're saying the bible is all scientific and accurate and way ahead of what other people knew at the time, but on the other hand you're saying that it's not because it's employing a figure of speech?>>
I didn’t say the Holy Bible was “all scientific.” I said when it touches on science, it’s accurate and thousands of years ahe ...[text shortened]... .
Obviously the writer of Isaiah did not mean the heavens are a literal curtain and literal tent.
@pb1022 saidYou have shown no evidence that you are able to think for yourself, so you'll excuse me for assuming that you can't.
@avalanchethecat
<< I think you should stop getting your arguments from creationist websites. The bible doesn't demonstrate any advanced scientific knowledge at all. If you want to follow this religion, it's a faith thing. You make a leap. There's no proof, no evidence, no convincing argument. If there was, we'd all be Christians. If you need to convince yourself with these ...[text shortened]... the theory of evolution in detail. If you had, you’d be able to provide evidence for macroevolution.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@avalanchethecat
You’re not into discussing substance, are you?
You just make these broad, sweeping claims with no evidence to back them up.
It’s really pretty sad.
And you *still* haven’t provided evidence for macroevolution - just assertions that evidence exists and lots of scientists agree with the theory.
Who’s the one who can’t think for himself?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
There are no scientific revelations in the bible. If you had a broader education you'd know this.
I don't know about that.
Recently I read about some scientists saying that there more water in the earth than there is in the oceans.
Hmmm, that is interesting gigantic amounts of hidden water deep in the earth.
They think there are giant reservoirs of
water under the ocean floor. and in the mantle of the earth. I thought of Genesis flood account saying that the fountains (or springs) of the deep bursts forth.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that very day all the springs of the great deep burst open, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights." (Gen. 7:11.12)
How did the author of Genesis know something only understood so recently. Under the earth great amount of water could burst forth in springs causing severe flooding ?
Then the springs of the "great deep" were shut up again as we are accustomed to them, with the exception of some notable geysers around the globe.
" . . . and God made a wind pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. The springs of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped." (8:1b,2)
@pb1022 said*Still* provided more evidence for 'macro' evolution than you have or can for the resurrection. And now you're just being boring.
@avalanchethecat
You’re not into discussing substance, are you?
You just make these broad, sweeping claims with no evidence to back them up.
It’s really pretty sad.
And you *still* haven’t provided evidence for macroevolution - just assertions that evidence exists and lots of scientists agree with the theory.
Who’s the one who can’t think for himself?
@sonship saidThat's a stretch. Are you suggesting that this subterranean water was somehow forced to the surface to provide the water that supposedly innundated the entire surface of the Earth? And you think that's credible?
@avalanchethecat
There are no scientific revelations in the bible. If you had a broader education you'd know this.
I don't know about that.
Recently I read about some scientists saying that there more water in the earth than there is in the oceans.
Hmmm, that is interesting gigantic amounts of hidden water deep in the earth.
They think ...[text shortened]... waters subsided. The springs of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped." (8:1b,2) [/b]